hugeasscity

For me, this is the easiest choice out of all the races.  Among the reasons:  Mike O’Brien has been consistent in his support for an integrated surface/transit solution as opposed to the deep bore tunnel.

The list of supporters for O’Brien’s fundraiser includes many of the City’s best thinkers and leaders on urban environmental issues.  These are people whose understanding of sustainability is both deep and wide, and who respect the interdependencies that span the spectrum from neighborhood to global scales.  And they can see that Mike O’Brien gets it.

(To digress, another reason folks may want to support O’Brien is that one of his leading challengers in the race is neighborhood activist David Miller.   To get an understanding of Miller’s decidedly un-hugeasscity perspective, check out my letter to the  “Livable Seattle Movement,” a organization that Miller co-founded.  Given the intellectual sloppiness in the publications authored by Miller’s group, it’s a real hoot to see him claim on his web site that he would “base decisions on real data.”  Equally hilarious is Miller’s utterly meaningless pet term “intra-urban sprawl.”  All of this would best be a topic for another post, but for now perhaps some of you commenters could help me out here and explain why I would be wrong to conclude that the gestalt of Miller is anti–density NIMBYism thinly veiled in Seattle old-guard neighborhood populism?)

“The renewal of life is the great theme of our age, not the further dominance, in ever more frozen and compulsive forms, of the machine.  And the first step for each of us is to seize the initiative and recover our own capacity for living; to detach ourselves from the daily routine to make ourselves self-respecting, self-governing, persons.  In short, we must take things into our own hands.  Before art on any great scale can redress our lop-sided [technology], we must put ourselves in the mood and frame of mind in which art becomes possible, as either creation or re-creation: above all we must learn to pause, to be silent, to close our eyes and wait.”

— Lewis Mumford, 1951

Even though my only credential is that I created a blog with the word “ass” in the title, yesterday I was allowed on the Link Light Rail VIP preview ride.  It’s a strange and beautiful world.

What is it about trains?  Everybody loves them.  And yes, of course, the Link Light Rail trains are sweet; the stations are sweet.  The populace will love it.  The allure of the train will draw more people to transit, and the permanence of the stations will catalyze rational and compact development patterns.  Urbanist wonk heaven.

But don’t think for a minute that I don’t have something curmudgeonly to add.  Because as has been noted ad nauseum on this blog—here, here, here, and here—the stations in the southeast Seattle portion of the line completely lack the kind of compact, walkable urban form that is appropriate for high capacity transit station areas.  And now that the trains are running, it’s only that much more embarrassing.  The light rail line itself is a huge achievement, but now the equally challenging task at hand is to transform the built environment around the stations.

The photos below give some flavor of the sad situation on the ground in the southeast Seattle and Tukwila stations:

[ Looking east from the Mt. Baker station platform, with Franklin High School in the background. ]

[  Looking west from the Columbia City station. ]

[ The Park & Ride at the Tukwila station.  Note the wall preventing easy access to the station from the housing. ]

[ The Tukwila station itself is a nice piece of work. ]

Bonus celebrity shots:

.
[ Seattle City Council candidate Mike O’Brien brought his bike along for the ride; King County Executive candidate Larry Phillips and corporate journalist Josh Feit feeling the light rail love. ]

[ Good timing for Mayor Greg Nickels, who happens to be up for reelection. ]

[ Rendering of Othello Partners’ two proposed mixed-use projects, looking east on S. Othello St across MLK Jr. Blvd. ]

Though all we know for sure is that the part of the future that runs on rails is coming tomorrow.  Hopefully the buildings in the rendering above will materialize someday too.

Othello Partners recently announced that they would break ground on The Station at Othello Park—the building on the right side of the image—in early July, but it looks like the the train opening is going to just barely beat them to the punch.   The project is a big one, 420,000 total square feet, with 350 rental apartments and 40,000 square feet of retail.   Key to the feasibility of the project was the City’s Multifamily Tax Exemption program.

The building in the left side of the rendering is Othello Partners’ follow-on mixed-use project with 342 apartments and 18,000 square feet of retail.  The project recently passed through Seattle’s Design Review process, but the start date is contingent on the future economic climate. 

Together the two Othello projects will put about 700 new units of housing at the station.  That translates to 1000 or more new people living in the station area.  That is awesome.  Transformative.  And there is big potentail for more development on the other side of MLK—see image here—although Safeway recently decided to hold on to their property and renovate the store.

Are the Othello Partners projects too big?  Like Thornton Place, they are not perfect.  For one thing, it would be great if they didn’t have so much on-site structured parking.  But without that amount parking, no bank would have come on board.  And yes, urban form tends to be richer when buildings are small scale, as well as diverse in style and age.  But that ideal must be balanced with the realities of economics and context.  All in all, the Othello projects are exactly what we need to get catalytic TOD on the ground and start reaping the benefits of our investment in light rail.

Here’s what the view shown in the rendering above looked like a year or two ago: 

>>>

Here’s a plan view of both Othello Partners projects:

>>>

Here’s what it looked like a couple of years ago:

A whole lotta lights that don’t need to be on, perhaps?

This photo of the ex-WaMu tower in downtown Seattle was taken as the blazing early afternoon sun flooded through all those floor-to-ceiling windows.   The row of overhead fluorescents nearest the windows can’t possibly be making much difference in the office light levels.  But nevertheless, there they are, uselessly sucking down electricity all day long.  And furthermore, given the current economic climate and recent history of that building, it seems safe to assume that many of those offices are empty anyway.

Meanwhile, all that glass intensifies solar heat gain, which then leads to more energy sucking by air conditioning.  Worst of both worlds.

In the U.S, buildings consume between about 40 to 50 percent of total energy (depending on how the beans are counted), and account for 43 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.    While lighting may not seem like it would use much energy, it acounts for 21 percent of consumption in commercial buildings.  In other words, turning off the lights matters.

The technology for lighting control systems that intelligently monitor ambient light and occupancy is available, relatively inexpensive, and can save significant energy.  How is it that, knowing all that we know, we are still putting up buildings with dumb lighting controls? 

Well, at least one guy was hard at work:

Not to be a negative nanny, or call attention to anything new, i.e. how awful Seattle townhouse development is, but I think it worth calling out those builders who are for the most part leaving nasty, long-lasting blemishes on Seattle’s built environment. This fine example is by Kohary Construction, Inc. You can see many more gawd awful examples of their work throughout the Ballard/Greenwood area. Go get ’em Kohary!

Bill Dietrich on livable density.

Roger Valdez on Portland’s courtyard housing program.

Aubrey Cohen with a follow up to the environmentalist NIMBY oxymoron. 

Cohen notes that one problem with promoting density in Seattle is that we don’t have many good examples to point to (a.k.a. the burden of the density advocates).  Part of that is because it is still a work in progress in many neighborhoods.  But there are certainly isolated examples of well-done infill housing projects all over the City, and the Pike/Pine/Madison area has many of the best. 

And since we all like pretty pictures, below are two that I happened to have lying around:  the Pearl Apartments at 15th and Madison, and the Bowling Green Apartments at 34th and Spring in Madrona.  Both add density and fit well with their contexts. 

shaft through this tunnel

fills me with tender tremors

you come, and depart

On June 15 Seattle City Council approved the Mayor’s $145 million Housing Levy proposal, which will now be subject to voter approval this November.  The current levy (3 mb pdf) has been a popular and successful program, and has been a key tool for enabling affordable housing projects all over the city (6 mb pdf).

Broadway Crossing on Capitol Hill—shown above—is a prime example of the kind of affordable project that addresses the housing needs of the City.  Replacing a gas station, it brings affordable housing to a area that has been rapidly gentrifying, and also happens to be Seattle’s most pedestrian-oriented neighborhood.   The building is  LEED Silver certified, demonstrating that with smart design, even affordable projects on tight budgets can be green.

But in all likelihood, Broadway Crossing would not have been feasible without levy funds, and instead the neighborhood would have got a single-story Walgreen’s store surrounded by surface parking.  And even though levy funds typically make a relatively small portion of the project’s total budget—on the order of 10 to 15 percent—the levy is key for establishing the legitimacy of a planned project, which then helps secure other sources of funding.  The City of Seattle estimates that every levy dollar spent leverages $3.25 of other public or private funding.

The proposed levy would assess $17 on every $100,000 of property value, up from the current levy’s $15.  The owner of a $400,000 home would pay $68 per year, or $5.67 a month—barely enough for two lattes, without tip.   (It says a lot about Jan Drago that she felt the need to posture about reducing the levy before voting for it anyway.)

Meanwhile, in the post-housing bubble economy, funding sources for affordable housing are shrinking, even as the need for that housing grows.   With corporate profits down, the value of tax credits have dropped precipitously.  And Washington State recently cut the Housing Trust Fund in half, from $200 to $100 million.

It is widely recognized that affordable housing is an essential ingredient of balanced, diverse, and sustainable cities.  Lack of affordable housing not only frays the social fabric of local communities, but also compromises regional sustainability via the “drive ’til you qualify” effect, which exacerbates sprawl and long commutes.  Historically, the demand for housing levy funds has outstripped supply.   So then, would it really be too much if we were to, say for example, double the proposed levy rate and ask the average Seattle homeowner to donate about a latte a week to help promote long-term local and regional sustainability?

But so be it, the levy we will vote on is set.  Hopefully the fact that the housing levy is modest relative to its importance will lead to strong voter approval come November, as has been the case with the City’s previous housing levies.

The Yes for Homes levy campaign kickoff event is next Wednesday July 15, 5 – 7pm, at the Swedish Cultural Center, 1920 Dexter Avenue North.

 A Seattle Times article today discussed the City’s proposal to install parking pay stations at the West Seattle Junction. Businesses and residents are up in arms – how could they!! Especially after the neighborhood fought hard to remove meters a decade ago. Businesses argue that making people pay for parking is bad for business. I don’t see this being a relevant arguement  in the bustling commercial districts of West Seattle-people who want to drive will pay for parking. Residents complain of parking spillover onto residential streets. This can be solved with RPZs and enforcement. If our goal as a City is to reduce VMT, one effective way to do this is to eliminate all free parking. Sightline Institute provides a good overview of this fact. Parking shouldn’t be free – West Seattle, you need to get with the program.

One idea that has been floated by the good folks over at Seattle Great City Initiative is to create targeted streetscape improvement funds using the revenue from parking paystations (I’m not sure what the status of this is). Each neighborhood business district with parking paystations would receive the revenue generated from the paystations (after operating and enforcement costs are subtracted) and could use it to make streetscape improvements such as pavement repair/enhancment, street furniture, public art, and other amenities. I wonder if there would be as much bitching about making people pay for parking if such a mechanism were put in place…

Yep:

Global warming is changing far more than just the climate. It’s altering the way environmentalists view development. For years, city dwellers who consider themselves to be eco-conscious have used environmental laws and arcane zoning rules to block new home construction, especially apartments and condominiums. In the inner East Bay, liberals have justified their actions by railing against gentrification and portraying developers as profiteers. But the lack of urban growth in Berkeley and in parts of Oakland during the past few decades also has contributed to suburban sprawl and long commutes. And all those freeways choked with cars are now the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

Ever notice how many U.S. Post Offices tend to be outdated single-story structures with very little street appeal, particularly in urban areas. Wouldn’t these often auto-oriented, low intensity uses be perfect redevelopment sites? The Post Office at 23rd and Union seems like a good opportunity, as does the one at Broadway, across from a future light rail station!! The Post Offices in Ballard and Wedgewood also come to mind. These are just a few examples in Seattle, but I imagine there are abundant such opportunities in cities across the country. The Post Office, or GSA, who likely owns and manages Post Office properties, is sitting on a potential gold mine (once the market recovers, anyhow). Forget about annual stamp price hikes and reducing the number of delivery days, the USPS should get into the development biz. Or, if these agencies aren’t so revenue motivated, then they could put these properties to greater public benefit, anyhow. Out of curiosity I searched the USPS and GSA websites to see if there were any programs focused on redevelopment of Post Offices. Aside from a few redevelopment projects creating large Federal complexes that include Post Offices, there is no such program, which doesn’t surprise me.

It’s a highly dubious proposition:  The facebookers already know about this, but I’ve invited the entire HAC universe to meet for drinks and wonky urbanist geek chit-chat, Thursday July 9th, 8pm at the Twilight Exit, 2514 East Cherry Street, in the Central District.  FB invite is here.

Why the Twilight?  It’s three blocks from my house and I’m lazy.  And also because it’s in a very interesting neighborhood that gets a lot of bad press about crime, so I thought it might be fun to drag people out to a part of the city they might not normally be inclined to visit.  Some of y’all may have heard about the outdoor art project in a vacant development site at 23rd and Union, just a few blocks north of the Twilight.

Will anyone show up?  Who knows?  I’m not even sure I want to be there.   If nothing else, an experiment to test the relationship between virtual and real.

This section of 5th Avenue between Union and University could well be the best piece of streetscape in all of downtown Seattle.  All it takes is a few basic ingredients:  small-scale storefronts, wide sidewalk, mid-block crossings, street trees, human-scale lighting. 

The 5th Ave roadway is fairly narrow here—three travel lanes and no parking—which makes crossings easier and helps create a cozy sense of enclosure between the two street walls.  Buildings are 5 to 7 stories on the East, though on the West it’s more of a hodgepodge with an unfortunate gap at Rainier Square.   Perhaps due to the “visual friction” of a narrow roadway, car traffic tends to move relatively slowly.

It’s simply a nice place to be a pedestrian.  And it’s really not that hard to create these spaces.

Erica beat me to it, but I can’t possibly not comment on  this bit of Seattle Times lameness regarding Seattle’s proposal to allow “backyard cottages” in single family zones.  The set up of the piece—describing the perceived horrors of the proposal from the point of view of just one person who may or may not ever actually be impacted in any way—perfectly captures the spirit of Seattle NIMBYism and how it impedes progressive policy.  A few whiny big mouths trump the long term interests of millions.  And by not bothering to note any of the big picture environmental and social benefits of backyard cottages, the Seattle Times piece only feeds the NIMBY fire.

If we are looking for painless ways to create a more sustainable Seattle, allowing backyard cottages is 100 percent no-brainer.  But still, the City has to go out and hold 17 public meetings before acting.  I wonder how much all those meetings cost the taxpayers? 

And witness how City officials are obliged to tip-toe around it—a DPD official is quoted as saying “Some people feel the proposal would add density to the single-family neighborhoods, and that’s just not true.”    Huh?  That may be technically correct according to code, but please, the whole idea of backyard cottages is to create more housing units without consuming more land.  The math is pretty much unequivocal about what that means for density.  

But no, dear God no, speaketh not of even the gentlest incremental change to sacred single-family.   And beware the damnable cottage!

A DJC article published on July 1 considered the design of Seattle’s waterfront post-Viaduct. Its central premise is that the design of the public space should happen before the alignment of the surface road is determined. Makes sense. This is a rare opportunity to create a space that can take advantage of all the waterfront has to offer in creating a vibrant and interesting public space rather than just trying to fit something in the space that is leftover from road construction, as is often the case. It’s worth a read…

One thing mentioned in the article, and something that I’ve been thinking about lately, is retaining a portion of the to-be-demolished Viaduct as a historical reference and interesting sculptural feature. The article mentions that Buster Simpson, a public artist, and Jack Mackie, an architect, have proposed saving some columns and partial beams as an “urban ruin”. I would take this further and suggest preserving a section large enough to function as an elevated open space and viewing platform (think the NYC High Line, see below). Certainly tearing down the Viaduct has the potential to create an amazing waterfront public space, but the opportunities for increasing open views of the Sound and the mountains beyond are limited by the numerous privately held properties lining the waterfront. Having more elevated viewing opportunities mayhelp address this fact. Victor Steinbrueck Park, and a couple spots in the Market, are among the few elevated public areas where people can take in views of the Sound. As we all know from driving north on the Viaduct, it is high enough to provide some stunning views (I have to admit I will miss that).

Dan’s image of the Viaduct actually provides a good illustration of an ideal location to preserve a section of the Viaduct (doubtless there are others). Thus, I stole it and unsophisticatedly overlaid a green oval to indicate a section of Viaduct that could be retained – adjacent to a non-descript Public Storage building, which will undoubtedly go away as significant (re)development occurs along the waterfront. In addition to providing views out towards the Sound and Olympic Mountains, this location also would afford views north along what will hopefully be an inspiringly designed public space. There may also be opportunities to integrate a new building with the structure that would help provide access to the space, and maybe have uses that can take advantage of the views.  At street level any number of activities could occur that could complement the waterfront public space and take advantage of the shelter offered by the old vestige such as café seating, vendor spaces, and maybe a stage for performances. Abundant vegetation growing up the columns and draping from above could be juxtaposed with a jagged edge of rebar and concrete left by the wrecking ball to give the effect of an “urban ruin” being overtaken by nature.

Could be good. Any other imaginative ideas?

The High Line in NYC (Image by AMNP)

Over at SLOG Dominic’s got a rundown of the new Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District.  In the photo above is the building at the corner of Union and Broadway that has been exempted from the overlay district, effectively giving the green light for the Polyclinic to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site.  This is a good move.  There is much worth preserving in Pike/Pine.  But the need for preservation must be sanely balanced with the need to accomodate growth.   

The key to a vibrant neighborhood is a broad mix of uses, types, ages, and conditions.  That car dealership adds almost  zero value to street life.  The building is nice but not that nice, and it is way underutilizing the land that it sits on.  A new medical buildng will bring jobs and people to the neighborhood. 

Pike/Pine is being transformed by classic American free market forces, combined with the inevitable rise in property values that comes as desirable cities grow.  Placing limits on redevelopment is unlikely to have much of an effect on preserving economic diversity, because if supply is limited, demand will drive up the prices all that much more.  A transfer of development rights program has some promise.  But in the end, as always, effectively preserving affordable real estate in a high-demand neighborhood requires market intervention, that is, government subsidy.

P.S.  Great City is sponsoring a brown bag lunch discussion of the Cultural Overlay District this Thursday, July 9, 12-1:00 pm at the offices of GGLO off Harbor Steps at 1st and University, more info here.

P.P.S.  The original post had an error.  The Polyclinic site was not upzoned.  If had not been exempted from the overlay zone, it would have been downzoned.

It’s time to rename the 4th of July.  Last night as I watched the fireworks with hundreds of others from the steep slope of Boston Street on the west edge of Capitol Hill, my feeble hyperactive brain began to drown in thoughts  of how I was witnessing last gasps of of dying way of life.

The age of independence is over.   Our obsession with independence has been a failed experiment, both socially and environmentally.   And our prospects in the coming age will be largely determined by our understanding of, and reverence for  interdependence.

So, in the spirit of interdependence, I thank all those who stepped up to keep hugeasscity alive during my recharge, and an especially big thank you to my favorite mistress Madame Density, whose mastery of the art of discipline was a godsend.

Apparently I’m ready to stop being tincandenza and get back into it.  But don’t let that stop those of you who have recently lost your hugeasscity virginity from continuing to contribute posts to this blog.  And to those who couldn’t get up the nerve, don’t worry, we’ll be gentle with you if you ever decide to take the plunge.

Working together we can all help make this blog a bigger force for good.  It’s the interdependence thing.

Is the deep-bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way viaduct a done deal?  Game over?  Should all those petulant whiners who don’t like it just suck it up and get over it, grow up and move on?

Seattle mayoral candidate Mike McGinn has a pithy response to that question:  if he is elected, the tunnel won’t happen.  For the record, here’s why whiners like me and McGinn won’t shut up, and aren’t ready to concede that the tunnel is a done deal:

The environmental and economic realities of climate change and peak oil, combined with the social realities of equity and livability, dictate that the future prosperity of cities like Seattle will be dependent on reducing reliance  on the single-occupant vehicle. Meanwhile, we are proposing to spend a gigantic pile of money on an underground freeway bypass for cars.  And not only that, it is configured in a way that renders it nearly useless for transit because it provides no access to downtown Seattle, the largest employment center in the Pacific Northwest; not to mention that it’s too small to fit a train.

At this point in history, making huge investments in infrastructure for cars is not what progressive societies do.  It’s stupid.  Borderline  suicidal.

The “surface/transit” option for replacing the viaduct was fully vetted and signed off on by both the City and State transportation agencies.  Nevertheless, critics claim it wouldn’t work.  They just know it wouldn’t.   Or maybe God told them so.  Yes, it would take a few minutes longer to get from Ballard to West Seattle.  But that criterion is nowhere near the top of the priority list for creating a more sustainable region.

Whenever there is talk of cutting back on the flow of money pouring down the rat hole of car infrastructure, there are those who retort that car capacity is untouchable until we have a perfect alternative in place. Well, I hate to break it to you friends, but the transformation that our civilization faces will not be painless, and the longer we put off major structural changes, the more pain we’ll feel in the long run.  We happen to be up against the biggest environmental threat in human history, in parallel with a forced weaning from the cheap energy source that has literally made our way of life possible.  The clock is ticking.  The time to NOT build the tunnel is NOW.

The deep-bore tunnel has a price tag in the range of two to three billion dollars more than a surface/transit solution.  That cash would buy a lot of transit, in addition to the transit upgrades that are already part of the proposed surface/transit packages.  Cue up the scornful howling over how we can’t just switch roadway funds to transit or anything else.  Bunk.  Real leadership would change those idiotic, counterproductive laws.

But back to the point:  is the tunnel a done deal?

• The $2.4 billion in allocated State funds is already $400 million short of a highly preliminary cost estimate.   Maybe that $400 million will come from tolls, but no one’s really sure.
• State law puts Seattle is on the hook for any tunnel cost overruns, but the Mayor says that law is unenforceable.   Things should get interesting fast if a new cost estimate comes in above that original $2.8 billion figure.
• The tunnel plan includes transit improvements, for which King County was to provide $190 million.  But the County has so far failed to establish a new motor vehicle excise tax that would generate those funds.  King County Metro is currently facing a budget hole of about $100 million.
• The City of Seattle must come up with $930 million for surface improvements and  a new seawall.   To put that amount in perspective, $930 million is one quarter of the entire 2009 City of  Seattle budget of $3.6 billion.  Currently the City is struggling to find $200 million to fix the Mercer mess.
• The Port of Seattle was to foot the bill for $300 million, but a May 2009  SDOT budget document notes that that sum is “source to be determined.”

There’s your done deal funding plan.  Good luck with that.

Ironically, another potential threat to the tunnel is the legislation championed by Governor Gregoire that mandates a 50 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) in the State of Washington by the year 2050.  Might it be that spending billions in State funds on a mile-long VMT generator runs counter to the intent of this legislation?  And might there be a smart environmental lawyer or two out there who will take an interest?

In a 2007 non-binding referendum 70 percent of Seattle voters rejected a tunnel to replace the viaduct.  Unfortunately a surface/transit option was not part of the referendum so we don’t know what kind of support it may have garnered.   But surely that 70 percent must mean something.  Surely that 70 percent represents a latent potential challenge to the done deal tunnel.